Court of Appeal for Ontario
CITATION: R. v. Stacey, 2016 ONCA 537
DATE: 20160706
DOCKET: C61653
BEFORE: Rouleau, Hourigan and Pardu JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Her Majesty the Queen Respondent
and
Marion Stacey Appellant
COUNSEL: Ian McLean, for the appellant Katherine Beaudoin, for the respondent
Heard and released orally: July 4, 2016
On appeal from the decision of the Summary Convictions Appeal Court dated January 8, 2016 by Justice M. Gregory Ellies of the Superior Court of Justice, dismissing the appeal from the conviction entered on June 26, 2015 by Justice Lynda J. Rogers of the Ontario Court of Justice.
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The appellant was convicted of care or control of a vehicle while impaired. Her first appeal was dismissed by a summary conviction appeal judge. She now seeks leave to appeal to this court. As this court held in R. v. R.R., 2008 ONCA 497, leave should be granted sparingly in these circumstances, as an exception to the general rule. Leave may be granted where the merits of the proposed question of law are arguable, even if not strong and the proposed question of law has significance beyond the four corners of the case; and where the summary conviction appeal judge has made a clear error, even if it cannot be said that the error has significance to the administration of justice beyond the particular case.
[2] This appeal has no apparent merit. The trial judge’s factual finding that the appellant’s conduct created a realistic risk of danger to persons or property was amply supported by the evidence. According to the appellant’s own evidence, she entered her vehicle with the intention of driving it. She drank alcohol while in the driver’s seat, with the keys in the ignition and the car turned on. A passerby found her at the wheel and unresponsive. The appellant has not identified any error of law on the part of the summary conviction appeal judge. This appeal has no significance to the administration of justice.
[3] Leave to appeal is denied.
“Paul Rouleau J.A.”
“C.W. Hourigan J.A.”
“G. Pardu J.A.”